4.6 Review

Key characteristics of knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare: integrative literature review

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 67, 期 7, 页码 1408-1425

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05631.x

关键词

evidence-based practice; knowledge exchange; knowledge transfer; literature review; nursing; research implementation

类别

资金

  1. NHS Lothian [7308]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. This paper presents the results of a review of literature relating to knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare. Background. Treatment, planning and policy decisions in contemporary nursing and healthcare should be based on sound evidence wherever possible, but research knowledge remains generally underused. Knowledge transfer and exchange initiatives aim to facilitate the accessibility, application and production of evidence and may provide solutions to this challenge. This review was conducted to help inform the design and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange activities for a large healthcare organization. Data sources. Databases: ASSIA, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Review methods. An integrative literature review was carried out including an extensive literature search. English language systematic reviews, literature reviews, primary quantitative and qualitative papers and grey literature of high relevance evaluating, describing or discussing knowledge transfer or exchange activities in healthcare were included for review (January 1990-September 2009). Findings. Thirty-three papers were reviewed (four systematic reviews, nine literature reviews, one environmental scan, nine empirical studies and ten case studies). Conclusion. Robust research into knowledge transfer and exchange in healthcare is limited. Analysis of a wide range of evidence indicates a number of commonly featured characteristics but further evaluation of these activities would benefit their application in facilitating evidence-based practice in nursing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据